Talk:Aro gTér/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit guidelines

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs, and Wikipedia:BLP before editing this page. Please leave this note at the top of the talk page, because these guidelines are often ignored.Arthur chos (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we remove the two external links

The two links at the end of the article are very important. Although they are personal blogs, they present (especially David's website) a lot of interesting material, including the scans of original documents etc. This material will probably never be printed, because the subject is not notable enough. These two links present both sides of the same coin. Arthur, as you have removed the Criticism section some time ago, at least do not remove the last remainder, otherwise the picture of Aro will be completely skewed. Fairness requires to present the story as seen from both sides. The Approachingaro.org website handles the criticism presented in the previous link quite well, so you should not have any problem with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem not to be communicating. I have tried many times to explain that the Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability; it is not about fairness, it is about NPOV. Verifiability means we cannot have links to anonymous blogs. We can only link to reliable sources. NPOV means we cannot include the strongly-felt religious opinions of tiny minorities. We can only include the views of mainstream authorities, considered experts in the field.

For a long time, I thought you were not following the verifiability and NPOV guidelines because you did not understand them. Now I wonder if you do understand them, but do not think they should apply?

If you are willing to abide by verifiability and NPOV, we can have a useful discussion of which sources count as reliable. If you are not, we are going to have a hard time coming to a consensus.

So, which is it?

Arthur chos (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes of 14 Nov 08

These changes are mostly responsive to ones that have been discussed below. I am combining most of my discussion here, because the discussions below have become deeply nested, people have not always signed them properly, and it could become difficult to see who is saying what about what.

First, regarding the lineage history. Some time back, I deleted the first version of this by Silvain1972, not because I thought it should not be covered, but because of the NPOV and verifiability issues I noted. I hoped he would write an improved version we could work from, and I am glad to see he has. I have moved it to a separate section, since readers are more likely to want to know "what is this about?" than about its history.

Verifiability of the lineage history. First, concerning the tulku recognitions. I have added a citation to a published piece by Gyaltsen Rinpoche that confirms this. Gyaltsen Rinpoche is a well-respected lama and scholar of the Dudjom lineage.

It is important to note that the indented paragraphs in the Rawlinson piece are quotes from Ngakpa Chogyam. The remainder is Rawlinson's own statements. He says flatly, in his own words, that "Kyabje Rinpoche also recognized him as the incarnation--that is, a tulku--of a Tibetan monk and visionary artist, 'a-Shul Pema Lengden" and "he was reborn ... as Aro Yeshe". Rawlinson does not say where he got this information, or how he evaluated it. It may have come solely from Ngakpa Chogyam, or he may have had other sources. We don't know. It is not our job to decide whether a professor of religious history did enough work or not. Whatever his sources were, he found them credible enough to put his academic reputation on the line. That is his area of expertise, and for us to have an opinion about whether he got is right would be Wikipedia:Original_research, which is a no-no. If we can find a comparable expert who disagrees, we certainly should cite that.

Concerning the remainder of the lineage section. There was only one footnote here, to one of the Gassho articles. I could not find in it anything to support the sentence it came after, so I replaced it with a citation-needed tag. (If I missed the relevant part of the Gassho article, could you reply here, and restore the citation?) I also put citation-needed tags on the other sentences. The only one of these for which I could find partial support was the list of teachers. Some of those are mentioned in Rawlinson, Gyaltsen Rinpoche, and on the Aro web site, but I could not find all of them anywhere.

By the way, Gyaltsen Rinpoche also confirms the bit about Sang-ngak-cho-dzong and Dudjom Rinpoche. It is further confirmed by Lama Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche, another important Dudjom lama, at [1]. I have not restored that bit, because I don't care about it, but since some people apparently do, I thought you might like to know.

Regarding the external links, which I have removed again: I discuss this below, in the talk section about them.

I have deleted some recently-added material from this talk page, applying the Wikipedia:GRAPEVINE rule. Generally, deletions from the talk page are a no-no. However, this material posed a serious WP:BLP issue, and was also entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article.

Please read WP:BLP and take it seriously.

Arthur chos (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits of early July, 2013

I have repeatedly reverted edits made by an anonymous contributor in early July, 2013. I assume good intentions on the part of the contributor, but in the current form, these changes are not admissible under Wikipedia policies.

Mainly, no citations of reliable sources have been given for any of the changes/additions. The Wikipedia policy (please read Wikipedia:Verifiability) is that anything the Wikipedia says must cite a reliable source.

Additionally, phrases like "widely disputed by many Nyingmapas" constitute "weasel words", in Wikipedia terms. (Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions which discusses this.) The article would need to say which Nyingmapas, and where they said so (or who says they said so), in a reliable published source. Hearsay is inadmissible.

Earlier versions of the edit ("not all Nyingmapas accept the terma") are almost certainly true, because Nyingmapas are diverse and probably don't agree about anything. Many or most termas are rejected by someone. That means, however, that this point is not notable (and therefore probably doesn't belong in the article, and definitely not in the first paragraph). And, it would still need a citation to belong in the article.

The fact that something is true does not, under Wikipedia policies, mean it can appear in the Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth, which explains this.

If reliable sources can be found for the material you want to add, it should of course be part of the article. Otherwise, please don't keep re-adding them. They are contrary to Wikipedia policies, and can't be included.

Arthur chos (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Added: The most recent round of edits was clearly in violation of WP:NPOV and gave the appearance of Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs. These issues have been gone through repeatedly on this page; please read the rest of the Talk. No one has ever provided any evidence for such claims. See also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight.

Arthur chos (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What does Rawlinson really say

Hi Arthur, you say that the "respected academic religious historian" has accepted that Aro has existed in Tibet. Look closer. What he does is simply quoting Chogyam. He is explaining the phenomenon using the words that Chogyam wrote to him. This is perfect, nobody has any problem with that. But the reader needs to know that. Otherwise people might think that there really is some proof that Aro had existed in Tibet (IS THERE?!).

So, what does he really say? Does he say that Aro DID exist? No, he simply quotes Chogyam saying he was a rebirth of Pema Legden. (Material redacted under Wikipedia:GRAPEVINE rule.) Can quotes from Chogyam be considered a verified source? Why not! I'm just asking that we mark this. Three small words, "According to Chogyam" should not be negative to your school, but are neutral and true. So please don't revert this.

You seem still to be missing a basic understanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about proof. It is not about truth. It is about what recognized experts say about a subject.

Rawlinson is a recognized expert (a professor of religious history). He accepted what Ngakpa Chögyam told him. Your opinion might be that he ought not to have, and that he ought to have done more research or something. Your opinion might be absolutely correct; but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. It is not our job as editors to evaluate what experts ought to have done. It is our job to report what experts say.

"Claims" (in the text you added) is a weasel word that implies "he is lying". It is not Wikipedia:NPOV and so it is not in accordance with policy. So I have reverted it.

I beg to differ. "Claims" is not a weasel word. It means that someone claims something, nothing more, nothing less. "Claim" might be a weasel word in a constructions like "it is claimed that...", because the subject is hidden. Here it's very clear, there is no doubt that he claims, and so far no proof that what is claimed (in this case - that Aro existed in Tibet) is true or not true. So "claims" in this case is perfect.

But if you don't like "claims", it's perfectly OK. I changed it into "says". It has exactly the same meaning and no negative associations at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I don't want to go back and forth over this indefinitely. I am not attached to any particular bit of content in this article. My only motivation is that what it says be verifable and Wikipedia:NPOV. So I propose a Wikipedia:Truce. It comes in two parts. I suggest that we replace the paragraph with "Aro was a non-monastic lineage, practiced by lay people and by holders of Ngak'phang (non-monastic, non-celibate) ordination." That drops the bit about Tibet that you have a problem with.

If you leave it in the past tense, it makes less sense then. "Aro *is* a non-monastic lineage" looks better, but it's your choice - if Tibet is dropped,I have no problem with that.

The second part of the truce is that you agree that the article is then fine, and you don't make any more changes to it. Is that agreeable?

Yes, I will have no more problems with this particular sentence. As for the rest of the article, I think there are still some things that are a bit misleading.

Arthur, I want to make one thing clear. It's not a holy war for me. I think that Chogyam is a very nice person and that he knows a lot about Buddhism. My aim is not to criticise - neither him not his teaching. I don't know if at the end of the day what he is doing will bring benefit or harm. But one thing is not fair: the attempts to make some things look more "legit" than they really are. Like for example the issue of authorisation/recognition from well-known lamas like Dudjom Rinpoche or Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche that you dropped. If you can not prove it, it should not be on Wikipedia. Even if Rawlison quotes Chogyam about this, you should not be surprised that many students of these two masters will have a problem with that. If it's on Aroter page, it's OK, you can claim whatever you want, but if you bring it on WP, you have to expect that people will ask for sources. (Material redacted under Wikipedia:GRAPEVINE rule.) If his teaching is authentic, it will defend itself, it will not need any recognition, title etc. I'm very much against putting any negative statements about Aroter here, just removing claims that are difficult or impossible to prove. Even David says on his website that many Aroter followers don't believe in the history of the lineage, so what we can say about us mere mortals, when we can find no proof except Chogyams words (even if he is quoted by a professor - as if that changed anything).

Arthur chos (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of the edits of 21 October 08

I started to re-write these edits to address various issues, but they were too pervasive, so I gave up and reverted them.

Overall, they do not adhere to the basic Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability. They also include weasel words, such as "claimed" and "purported", which imply "but it is not true"; and "seems" which means "I am not going to give a reliable source".

"Many details... are unclear": This is true of most or all Tibetan lineages. It is not noteworthy.

Most of the added material is unsourced, and looks like Wikipedia:Original_research.

The footnote for "Many students... fanciful" does not support the text; it is not a reliable source; and the point does not seem noteworthy. The source says "some", not "many", and doesn't say "fanciful" or anything that looks equivalent to me. It is a blog, and blogs are explicitly disallowed as Wikipedia sources. "Some" followers of any religion probably doubt some aspects, and this does not seem something that needs to be said.

It might be useful to read Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs.

Arthur chos (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, just one correction of your edits. I think that without making the story too long it's useful to condense the controvers into one thing. Chogyam claims, that Aro existed in Tibet. But it's impossible to prove. He can write a book about this, he can be quoted in a book, but this does not change the fact that he is the only person claiming this and cannot provide any proof. I think it's important to mark this. The edit I made - "according to Chogyam" - is very true and should not be controversial at all. It is not misleading the visitor into thinking something mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.104.211 (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted every bit of information concerning how this lineage came to be. That is not acceptable. I am submitting a revised version.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Money and apprenticeship

Hi Arthur chos, since you have removed my information about the money Chogyam charges his apprentices after David removed it from the Aro website, saying it is "unsourced", maybe you should provide your version. How much money does it cost to be an apprentice? I think the readers of the article about Aro have the right to know this. Because you have the first-hand knowledge, why not to include it here? The document said between $200 and $600 a month per apprentice, this is really the highest spiritual tax I've ever seen! If you think the information I took from Aro website was false, why don't you include your own version, like you do with all the remaining pieces of information found now in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted two of the three changes you made Oct 18-19, and modified one.

You put a challenge to the Dudjom Rinpoche bit into the text of the article. The right way to do that would be to add a tag. I have no interest in the point, however, and I have removed the whole bit. I hope that you will now stop edit warring, since that bit appears to have been particularly important to you.

You restored the material I removed before because it is unsourced. Please do not do this. "Right to know" is not a principle of Wikipedia. Anything in the Wikipedia must be verifiable. Furthermore, the page you are pointing at does not support what you said. In fact, it explicitly says that there is no charge for teaching, and you can be an apprentice without paying anything.

I assume that the bit you added about a "separate website" refers to approachingaro.org. I have removed this because (1) that site explicitly says that Aro is not controversial and that criticism is restricted to a few web trolls; (2) the site has an explicit statement of purpose that does not include "fighting controversy"; (3) the site is a blog, which is not a reliable source; (4) the site is already referenced below (although I believe it should not be), and its existence hardly seems notable enough to deserve mention in the first paragraph of the article.

May I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs and see if it applies to you? My impression is that you may be engaged in a holy war, not helping write an encyclopedia. If I am wrong, you can prove me wrong by adhering to the policies of NPOV and verifiability.

Arthur chos (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, does this mean that the $200 - $600 price tag for one apprentice per month has been removed and now you can be an apprentice without paying? That would be strange! If the prices changed, why not give them here? They were available on your website for a long time, why did you remove them when I quoted them on Wikipedia? These are very important questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.104.211 (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Money and edits

I took information about the current cost of apprenticeship from RTF files at [2]. After I included them here, they noticed that and removed any references to concrete sums of money. After that, the user Lily W registered and added "citation needed" marks in the article. Well, Lily W, I'm sorry - if you removed them from the website, how can I provide them to you now? I guess you will now remove the references to money on the grounds that it's unfounded. Good luck with that, it's just like the rest of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Arthur chos - you have actually pulled it off! I thought you wouldn't dare... What's the use of such a false article?... You know very well I can't give you the sources, because you have removed it, and Web Archive is not archiving RTF files. Good luck with the article. You can manipulate it however you like, noone cares anymore. Arthur, why don't you remove the "Criticism" link? It's the last element that doesn't fit your puzzle. I think you should remove it just like everything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of undo

Arthur chos is reverting my changes claiming that his version is proven by what he calls "scientific journals". Unfortunately, he can not indicate in which scientific journal it is said that Aro existed in Tibet. Please provide such a proof, and until then please do not revert my change.

Second: Arthur says that Dudjom Rinpoche asked Ngakpa Chogyam to establish the ngakpa tradition in the West. He even provides a source. However, the source is Ngakpa Chogyam himself, even if published in an electronic journal. I think that at the very least this should be very clearly stated. Otherwise we may introduce to Wikipedia any kind of absurd idea claiming that someone wrote it in an e-journal. For this particular issue it would be good to have a bit more substantial proof that the opinion of Chogyam himself.

These both changes are unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for an explanation of your changes.

I did not say "scientific journal", I said "journal". Gassho was a partly-academic journal with an impressive editorial board, including for example Robert Aitken Roshi, Thubten Chodron, Anne C. Klein, and Gangchen Tulku Rinpoche. Print journals are maybe more prestigious than electronic ones, but electronic journals are certainly academically citeable. An entirely peer-reviewed journal might also take priority, but the editorship gives the article significantly more credibility than (for example) a self-published source.

I have added a citation for "In Tibet, Aro was a non-monastic lineage"; this is in the 1:5 Gassho article: "They were either itinerant Nyingma yoginis and their partners, or those who lived in communities such as the Aro Gar".

I have added a second citation for Dudjom Rinpoche and Sang-ngak-chö-dzong; this is to a book published by Shambhala Publications, which is one of the most respected Buddhist publishers.

Wikipedia is full of ideas I consider absurd, legitimately introduced on the basis of citeable sources. My opinion is irrelevant, and so is yours. What matters is what WP:Reliable Sources say. If you want to provide a viewpoint other than that of the sources the article currently cites, you need to find reliable sources that state it.

Regarding Ngakpa Chögyam, WP:BLP may be relevant. Some care is called for. In fact, I think the "Criticism" link should probably be removed on this basis.

Arthur chos (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Major revision

Hello and best wishes to all contributors!

Two brief substantive points, and then a longer procedural one.

I've done an extensive edit with the aim of turning a stub into a "good" article. Substantially all the material is new.

I would like to propose that the article be moved to "Aro lineage" (with a redirect). I'm inclined to think that the Aro gTér does not warrant a page of its own. Alternatively, we could spilt the terma section out as an Aro gTér page, and the remainder could be an "Aro lineage" page, with a summary of the terma. What do you think?

Procedurally, it would be helpful for all contributors to review the three fundamental policies of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:No original research. These terms all have non-obvious specialized meanings in the Wikipedia world.

"Verifiability in a nutshell means: material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." When I deleted some material on 21 Jan 08 and described it as non-verifiable in the edit note, I was referring to that. Sorry if this was cryptic. This material had no citations, was likely to be challenged, and relied on anonymous hearsay. (It was quickly restored by someone anonymous, and then deleted again by me today, for the same reason.)

"Neutral point of view" (NPOV) means that all significant views, that can be cited in reliable sources, must be represented. However, articles ought not to discuss views for which no reliable source can be found, or which come from a "tiny" minority. This is the case "regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". (See the NPOV article.)

"No original research" in a nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish... unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.... Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

What follows is my understanding of the applicability of these three principles to the material I deleted, and to the meta discussion in the article body (to which I've added a note suggesting that it be moved to this talk page).

"Considerable discussion on Buddhist forums": forums are rarely if ever a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense.

"Scholars reported that...": This should be included if we can find good citations. Unfortunately, during my research, I wasn't able to find any.

"Most observers...": please see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words.

"Numerous Tibetan Lamas... had repudiated these claims": which Lamas? Where did they publish these repudiations?

"A written statement from the Dalai Lama's office" and "a subsequent letter": Unfortunately I couldn't locate these; please provide citations?

"There is plenty of evidence on the internet of controversy." When looking for this, I found strongly-worded, anonymous statements on the eSangha forum. Is this what you are referring to? That probably does not in itself constitute "controversy". One can find forum threads with passionate denunciations of cauliflower, but that not make cauliflower a controversial topic. The question for Wikipedia purposes is whether disagreement is "notable", and whether it can be documented based on reliable sources. A good model would be NKT#Controversies, which is based on published meta-discussion of the controvery by academic experts.

"Reputable figures can confirm that..."; "comments made by several widely respected Lamas"; "several prominent scholars": Could you provide citations please? I couldn't locate these. In the eSangha forum, I did see anonymous postings attributing opinions to known third parties, but this would not constitute a "reliable source". On a forum, anyone can anonymously claim that person X said Y.

Arthur chos (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

response re properly citing critics, etc

Hi, thanks for clarifying how the controversy section of this entry can be presented in accord with wikipedia's guidelines. Ironically, you are wishing me the best in validating the points which, when properly documented, cited, etc, will clearly challenge the authenticity of this lineage. When I have the time to pursue this, I will return to this project. Thanks

Redirection from Aro gTer to Aro lineage

RE:

I agree. I think it would be tidier as one page, including the gTér as a subheading. If the main page should become unwieldy at some point, we could always revisit the idea of separating them out. Lily W (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism link

I am not sure what is best to do with the new "Criticism" external link that was added by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. The link leads to an anonymous blog post (inherently not a reliable source; not suitable for an encyclopedia). The blog post doesn't cite any reliable sources either. It is also fairly incoherent, written in a sort of stream-of-consciousness style, and I often couldn't understand what it was trying to say.

So I'm tempted to just delete it. But apparently there is someone who feels that the world really, really needs to know that someone anonymous thinks there is some sort of problem here. I don't really want to get in an edit war with whoever it is, so for the time being I've added a link to another blog that appears to be responsive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur chos (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that it is now the only reference to criticism, if you delete this, the whole page is pretty much advertising - including the load of links to its own website - for a lineage that certainly does have its critics, and is pretty strong in questionable claims. rudy (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has now been six months. I left the link to the criticism blog on the theory that it would satisfy those who think the world needs to know that there is some sort of problem. However, they are still trying to edit the page to have it say there is a problem. Nothing they have added has been verifiable. If there is a problem we can verify from reliable sources, the page absolutely should say so. I have looked hard for something like that myself, and I can't find anything.

The links to the Aro web site mostly document what the sect believes and does. I would think that, generally, a sect's statement of what it believes and does would be reliable. If there is some reason to believe the web site is an unreliable guide to the sect's own beliefs and practices, we could reconsider that.

If you think the article's language has unwarrantedly positive POV, you could of course edit it accordingly.

I have removed the links to both blogs. They don't belong in an encyclopedia.

Arthur chos (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wake up

Come on, people! We are facing the biggest fake phenomenon in contemporary Vajrayana, and you speak about NPOV, problems of verification of claims, forum rumours, gossip etc. These guys are fake, have no confirmation from anybody, they even have the guts to call themselves "Rinpoches"! People who want to verify what Aro is should know what others think about this "tradition". Removing the criticism section serves nothing but sweeping the dirt under the carpet. Wake up, this is important! People who are doing this will be partly responsible when some more innocents get caught in the net of that false guru. Please, leave the opposing view, this is more important that you may think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that that a fair fraction of Vajrayana is nonsense, including some of what I wrote on the page. What I believe, what you believe, what we KNOW, and even what is TRUE are irrelevant and have no place in a WP article. What matters is what can be documented on the basis of reliable sources using academic criteria.

I am really sure that "Joseph Ratzinger, who calls himself "Pope" and claims to be infallible, actually teaches a false religion based on faked documents, and advocates ritual cannibalism." However, I don't go vandalizing the Pope page, because my opinion, and in fact the truth, are irrelevant there.

WP articles need to be written from an external perspective. "Fake", and "false", when it comes to religion, are only meaningful from an internal perspective. Religious genuineness is a matter of dogmatic belief, not verifiable fact. It is inherently non-NPOV.

"Rinpoche" is a meaningless honorific. (Check the WP article, especially the last bit.) There is no fact-of-the-matter about who is a Rinpoche, and no criteria for deciding. In practice, if enough people call you "Rinpoche" that it sticks, then it sticks. That's all.

Published books and journal articles say that several respected Lamas have approved of the Aro gTér. Maybe they are wrong. If we can find comparable reliable sources, we should include them. In the meantime, your opinion or my opinion is irrelevant.

Arthur chos (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone seen this terma?

I noticed Arthur Chos has made another edit trying to make look Aro more legit. He changed the wording of the previous edit saying "according to the terma". But has anyone seen this "terma"? All we know is that Chogyam claims it exists, but that's all. We don't even know in what language it was composed. The only person who claims saw it is the guru of this movement. So how can we include references at to what it says in a WP article? We would have to see the text of the terma, which will never happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.69.13 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence beginning "according to the terma" has a footnote to a book by Andrew Rawlinson, a Professor of religious history at the University of Lancaster. He accepted the existence of the Aro gTér, and its history in Tibet; he says so the cited book, which was published by Open Court Publishing Company, a respected academic press. That is the gold standard for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources).

There is an answer to your question at http://approachingaro.org/tibetan-texts.

Please stop using this talk page to argue your personal opinion about the Aro gTér. That is in violation of the Wikipedia policies. Please read and follow Wikipedia:TPG.

I deleted your last long opinion piece, and I will delete any future ones.

Arthur chos (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Decide for yourself, search for it on this list, then think for yourself and come to your conclusions.

http://viewonbuddhism.org/controversy-controversial-teacher-group-center-questionable.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progschorsch (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of 10 June

I reverted your change for two reasons. The first is that "claims" is the #1 WP "word to avoid" (Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim) because it implicitly means "he is lying".

If that were the only issue, we could change the text to something like "Ngakpa Chögyam has written that ...". However, the point is substantiated by two sources that are "reliable" in the WP sense, and footnoted to them.

I understand your frustration regarding this. My guess would be that Rawlinson, at least, simply took Ngakpa Chögyam's word for it. (I have no idea about Gyaltsen Rinpoche.) However, as Wikipedians, we can't report our guesses. All we can report is what reliable sources say. Unless there is a source that is "reliable" in the WP sense which contradicts Rawlinson and Gyaltsen Rinpoche, we have to let it stand as is -- regardless of whatever our guesses may be. Arthur chos (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What is thisthat? *http://www.scribd.com/doc/12196409/Garson-Nathaniel-Penetrating-the-Secret-Essence-of-Tantra-Context-and-Philosophy-in-the-Mahayoga-System-of-rNyingMa-Tantra

thankyou for being allowed to put it here, the connecction might appear soon.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.106 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't much more than an advertising page for a very controversial lineage. Dissenting information ought to be included.

Self published sources

Added the tag for questionable wp:sps in this article. Time to improve the sourced content here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5, could you please be specific about which sources you consider questionable? Please note, from WP:SELFPUBLISH, two categories of self-published sources that may be acceptable: those written by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and "as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". (Both categories have caveats attached that may or may not be relevant.)

There seem to be two sorts of facts in the article: those about the lineage history, and those about what the tradition believes and does. For the lineage history, the sources seem all to be non-self-published and quite solid (Rawlinson's book, the Shambhala books, and the Gassho articles). In some cases, the article cites the religious organization's official web site concerning what it believes and does. This seems non-problematic under the WP guidelines for "sources of information about themselves". The WP article also cites some books published by "Aro Books", presumably the organization's house press. I am not sure that these would count as "self-published". For example, I would assume that a book published by an official, international Baptist organization would be considered the best possible source on Baptist belief and practice. In any case, most of these books were written by Ngakpa Chogyam, who appears to be the recognized leading expert on the Aro gTer, and who "has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per the guidelines. Arthur chos (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What most concerning about the Self Published sources is the accompanying WP:SYNTHESIS. SPS are Ok for claims about the source; however, when they affect other or become a vehicle to advance an original researched position on wiki then there is cause for concern. It's difficult to be specific because all the material isn't sourced; however, I will work on a few things. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

After review wikipedia's current policies, I am satisfied now. Time changes everything. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag added 20th March 2010

98.164.100.51, please specify what aspect(s) of the page you believe to be NPOV. We cannot improve the page to address this without specifics. It could be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute carefully. WP:Undue weight might also be relevant. Please note the following, quoted from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Arthur chos (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edits of 14th December 2010

I have reverted these edits for several reasons:

All of this would require citation of reliable sources. None were given.

"Criticism" that occurred mostly only on one internet forum, which no longer exists, is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, and does not belong in the article.

We cannot report guesses about what a forum might have said based on what a blog has said. None of these things are verifiable. It's speculation about speculation based on speculation.

The second paragraph is vague and unclear, and insinuates problems that it does not spell out. "Some" is never admissible in Wikipedia; it is a weasel word. "Didn't openly criticise" implies covert criticism. "Should": according to who? Etc. etc.

Also, the Wikipedia guidelines discourage "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections. Such material should be integrated into the relevant parts of the article. Arthur chos (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)